Goodbye Hunter Dickinson

[DCHawk1]

Hunter puts up such empty numbers tho because how little he impacts winning.

lots of us have been saying this for months

It has become something of a gotcha, for the anti-Hunter set, to suggest that he shares a lot of similarities with Dedric.

Just me, as far as I know.

[DeletedUser]

I think HD is a lot better than Dedric was. I also think HD is more likeable. I was not a fan of the Lawson fam.

[Overlander]

I was not a fan of the Lawson fam.

This.

I would like to see KJ be a Rodman type, using his athleticism to GET BOARDS!

He could take some of the defensive load off of HD if he developed this mindset as well.
IMO

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

* Edited.
Nevermind. I'm not really sure why I care.

[TDub]

Hunter puts up such empty numbers tho because how little he impacts winning.

lots of us have been saying this for months

It has become something of a gotcha, for the anti-Hunter set, to suggest that he shares a lot of similarities with Dedric. Including this particular trope.

I think, if you have one guy averaging something like 33-35 combined points/assists/rebounds/blocks/steals, and you have a disappointing team season with that guy, maybe before you lay the blame on that guy for not "impacting winning" enough, you need to first look to what's around that guy.

I agree that the similarities between '19 and '24 cannot be ignored. I, personally, would not use "the best guy didn't impact winning enough" as the headliner.

I don't think it's a "gotcha" I think it's just facts. Hunters teams have never been winners. He gets big numbers but he doesn't impact the game nearly as much as his numbers suggest.

[randylahey]

Dedric gets shit on too much. That team was undefeated and ranked #1 before dok got hurt. Dedric complimented him very well, that team fell apart when Dok went down. Dedric just wasn't a 1 man front court

[jfish26]

lots of us have been saying this for months

It has become something of a gotcha, for the anti-Hunter set, to suggest that he shares a lot of similarities with Dedric. Including this particular trope.

I think, if you have one guy averaging something like 33-35 combined points/assists/rebounds/blocks/steals, and you have a disappointing team season with that guy, maybe before you lay the blame on that guy for not "impacting winning" enough, you need to first look to what's around that guy.

I agree that the similarities between '19 and '24 cannot be ignored. I, personally, would not use "the best guy didn't impact winning enough" as the headliner.

I don't think it's a "gotcha" I think it's just facts. Hunters teams have never been winners. He gets big numbers but he doesn't impact the game nearly as much as his numbers suggest.

Ok. To me, that's mistaking correlation for causation.

For what it's worth, excluding walkons, our WS/40 ("an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player per 40 minutes (average is approximately .100))" on this team:

Hunter - .196
Kevin - .161
Furphy - .156
Adams - .140
Braun - .136
McDowell - .091
Harris - .089
Timberlake - .086

Proof that Hunter is a "winning" player? Of course not. But again I find it hard to look at this team and roster and say Hunter was even remotely close to the "problem" side of the ledger. In fact, that list (and its order) makes intuitive sense.

[pdub]

I don’t think Hunter is a leader of men.
It’s wildly subjective I understand but I don’t see a world where he’s the best player on a team that wins a title. I think team members take on the mentality of their leaders who often are the best players. Hunter is not this person to me.

But certainly no he wasn’t the biggest problem on this squad, of course not.

[jfish26]

I don’t think Hunter is a leader of men.
It’s wildly subjective I understand but I don’t see a world where he’s the best player on a team that wins a title. I think team members take on the mentality of their leaders who often are the best players. Hunter is not this person to me.

But certainly no he wasn’t the biggest problem on this squad, of course not.

I can certainly get on board with the direction you're going here.

[twocoach]

Agreed. HD's positive impact is given less credit and his negative impact is overstated when a fan is frustrated with the overall results. Especially if someone doesn't like HD for personal reasons to begin with.

Dickinson's defense was A reason for their disappointing results but certainly not THE reason. There were probably a dozen other factors that more negatively impacted the overall results. HD is just easy to complain about.

[TDub]

It has become something of a gotcha, for the anti-Hunter set, to suggest that he shares a lot of similarities with Dedric. Including this particular trope.

I think, if you have one guy averaging something like 33-35 combined points/assists/rebounds/blocks/steals, and you have a disappointing team season with that guy, maybe before you lay the blame on that guy for not "impacting winning" enough, you need to first look to what's around that guy.

I agree that the similarities between '19 and '24 cannot be ignored. I, personally, would not use "the best guy didn't impact winning enough" as the headliner.

I don't think it's a "gotcha" I think it's just facts. Hunters teams have never been winners. He gets big numbers but he doesn't impact the game nearly as much as his numbers suggest.

Ok. To me, that's mistaking correlation for causation.

For what it's worth, excluding walkons, our WS/40 ("an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player per 40 minutes (average is approximately .100))" on this team:

Hunter - .196
Kevin - .161
Furphy - .156
Adams - .140
Braun - .136
McDowell - .091
Harris - .089
Timberlake - .086

Proof that Hunter is a "winning" player? Of course not. But again I find it hard to look at this team and roster and say Hunter was even remotely close to the "problem" side of the ledger. In fact, that list (and its order) makes intuitive sense.

He didn't win anything at Michigan ot Kansas, he won a conference title in high school but no state title.

That's what I mean by isn't a winner, comparing him to others on this team isn't exactly a great comparison, of course he's gonna look better compared to them, we also just had our worst season in 40ish years.

[randylahey]

I don’t think Hunter is a leader of men.
It’s wildly subjective I understand but I don’t see a world where he’s the best player on a team that wins a title. I think team members take on the mentality of their leaders who often are the best players. Hunter is not this person to me.

But certainly no he wasn’t the biggest problem on this squad, of course not.

I think that's looking too far into it.

Hunter doesn't impact winning because his defense is so bad it offsets how good he is on offense. He's just too slow. He may improve your team offense with his size and skill, but he also makes your team defense much worse because everyone has to play more help defense to account for his lack of speed

[AlOerter]

KJ gives max effort always. He can switch ball screens on D with just about anyone. Even though he's not a shooter he manages to get his points other ways. We need 8 guys without a big drop off when the 3 bench guys come in.

Hunter has amazing ball skills for a guy his size. As someone else has said his feet are just not quick enough to be a good defender. It's a trade off. Other teams scouted it and exploited it.

[jfish26]

I don't think it's a "gotcha" I think it's just facts. Hunters teams have never been winners. He gets big numbers but he doesn't impact the game nearly as much as his numbers suggest.

Ok. To me, that's mistaking correlation for causation.

For what it's worth, excluding walkons, our WS/40 ("an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player per 40 minutes (average is approximately .100))" on this team:

Hunter - .196
Kevin - .161
Furphy - .156
Adams - .140
Braun - .136
McDowell - .091
Harris - .089
Timberlake - .086

Proof that Hunter is a "winning" player? Of course not. But again I find it hard to look at this team and roster and say Hunter was even remotely close to the "problem" side of the ledger. In fact, that list (and its order) makes intuitive sense.

He didn't win anything at Michigan ot Kansas, he won a conference title in high school but no state title.

That's what I mean by isn't a winner, comparing him to others on this team isn't exactly a great comparison, of course he's gonna look better compared to them, we also just had our worst season in 40ish years.

We're all the way into the Kuiper Belt if we're declaring players to be "winners" or "others" based on how their high school teams played.

I know you hate the guy and what he represents. I would agree that his personality type is not necessarily what you want out of your "leader".

But I think you're going way, way too far to find things to pick at. You want to use our record to say he's not a "winner" - how many games would we have won this year without him?

[mjl2]

KJ gives max effort always. He can switch ball screens on D with just about anyone. Even though he's not a shooter he manages to get his points other ways. We need 8 guys without a big drop off when the 3 bench guys come in.

Hunter has amazing ball skills for a guy his size. As someone else has said his feet are just not quick enough to be a good defender. It's a trade off. Other teams scouted it and exploited it.

Hunter's defense was looking massively improved about midway through the season.

Then he regressed.

Maybe McCullar's presence helped there. But the way the defense rotated at the beginning and end of the season was the worst of the Self era. Only competition is possibly when. McCormack's foot was making him basically immobile.

[TDub]

Ok. To me, that's mistaking correlation for causation.

For what it's worth, excluding walkons, our WS/40 ("an estimate of the number of wins contributed by a player per 40 minutes (average is approximately .100))" on this team:

Hunter - .196
Kevin - .161
Furphy - .156
Adams - .140
Braun - .136
McDowell - .091
Harris - .089
Timberlake - .086

Proof that Hunter is a "winning" player? Of course not. But again I find it hard to look at this team and roster and say Hunter was even remotely close to the "problem" side of the ledger. In fact, that list (and its order) makes intuitive sense.

He didn't win anything at Michigan ot Kansas, he won a conference title in high school but no state title.

That's what I mean by isn't a winner, comparing him to others on this team isn't exactly a great comparison, of course he's gonna look better compared to them, we also just had our worst season in 40ish years.

We're all the way into the Kuiper Belt if we're declaring players to be "winners" or "others" based on how their high school teams played.

I know you hate the guy and what he represents. I would agree that his personality type is not necessarily what you want out of your "leader".

But I think you're going way, way too far to find things to pick at. You want to use our record to say he's not a "winner" - how many games would we have won this year without him?

the guy is overrated based on empty stats. I dont like him, I'm not gonna like him. I dont think he helps a team win. My point going to high school is that it seems whatever team he is there are 2 constants, his stat line is always good, his team doesn't win.....I dont think those things are coincidences.

[jfish26]

He didn't win anything at Michigan ot Kansas, he won a conference title in high school but no state title.

That's what I mean by isn't a winner, comparing him to others on this team isn't exactly a great comparison, of course he's gonna look better compared to them, we also just had our worst season in 40ish years.

We're all the way into the Kuiper Belt if we're declaring players to be "winners" or "others" based on how their high school teams played.

I know you hate the guy and what he represents. I would agree that his personality type is not necessarily what you want out of your "leader".

But I think you're going way, way too far to find things to pick at. You want to use our record to say he's not a "winner" - how many games would we have won this year without him?

the guy is overrated based on empty stats. I dont like him, I'm not gonna like him. I dont think he helps a team win. My point going to high school is that it seems whatever team he is there are 2 constants, his stat line is always good, his team doesn't win.....I dont think those things are coincidences.

Ok. But your opinion would, I guess, be different had we won 33 games this year?

Which would have required better players around him, yes?

Or would you be saying, based on his Michigan and high school (???) team success, that clearly what happened is the better players finally dragged him along into winning?

[KUTradition]

how’d a Dickinson-less michigan do last season?

14th in the B1G
8-24 (3-17)

don’t think HD was the issue with their struggles

[jfish26]

how’d a Dickinson-less michigan do last season?

14th in the B1G
8-24 (3-17)

don’t think HD was the issue with their struggles

Well obviously the loser stink lingers.

[TDub]

We're all the way into the Kuiper Belt if we're declaring players to be "winners" or "others" based on how their high school teams played.

I know you hate the guy and what he represents. I would agree that his personality type is not necessarily what you want out of your "leader".

But I think you're going way, way too far to find things to pick at. You want to use our record to say he's not a "winner" - how many games would we have won this year without him?

the guy is overrated based on empty stats. I dont like him, I'm not gonna like him. I dont think he helps a team win. My point going to high school is that it seems whatever team he is there are 2 constants, his stat line is always good, his team doesn't win.....I dont think those things are coincidences.

Ok. But your opinion would, I guess, be different had we won 33 games this year?

Which would have required better players around him, yes?

Or would you be saying, based on his Michigan and high school (???) team success, that clearly what happened is the better players finally dragged him along into winning?

we've done this.

why do we keep doing this what if dance when we have actual results to discuss?

For me personally, my opinion of him wouldn't change. I would be happier with our season results, however, and would have to admit that the roster construction did, indeed, work.